Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Striking Off Defence – Recall Allowed – Petitioner’s defence struck off under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for failure to file written statement – Delay attributed to counsel’s engagement in municipal election work – Held: In non-commercial disputes, timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory – Petitioner not to suffer for counsel’s lapse – One last opportunity granted to file written statement with costs of ₹5,000 [Paras 2–3, 7–13].

Court’s Discretion – Non-Commercial Suit – Timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Reiterated that in non-commercial cases, courts retain discretion to condone delay – Supreme Court in Desh Raj v. Balkishan, (2020) 2 SCC 708 and Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788 applied – Held: Procedural laws must be applied to advance justice, not defeat it [Paras 3, 8, 11–13].

Wrong by Counsel – No Prejudice to Litigant – Litigant Should Not Suffer – Court emphasized settled principle that party should not be penalized for counsel’s mistake – Reliance placed on Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad, (2010) 1 SCC 391 and Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 [Paras 8–9].

Distinction from Commercial Disputes – Ratio of J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi distinguished as inapplicable – Held: That judgment pertained to Consumer Protection Act where statutory timelines are mandatory – Not applicable to civil suits governed by unamended CPC [Para 10].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Order striking off defence set aside – Petitioner permitted one last opportunity to file written statement on 03.10.2025 upon payment of ₹5,000 to High Court Employees Welfare Association – If hearing does not take place on 03.10.2025, one effective opportunity to be granted on adjourned date [Paras 13–16].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Sale of Drugs Without Valid License – Petitioner (Accused No.2), a licensed drug distributor, alleged to have supplied allopathic drugs to Accused No.1, a non-registered practitioner running a clinic without drug license – Proceedings initiated under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Act of 1940 – Court held that such supply violated the license conditions of the petitioner – Held: Offences prima facie made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 3, 7].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Complaint alleged to be barred as maximum punishment for Accused No.2 is two years – Court held that offences against co-accused (Accused No.1) are punishable up to five years – As per Section 468(3) CrPC, limitation is computed with reference to most severe offence in joint trial – Petition not barred by limitation [Paras 4, 8].

Authority of Complainant – Drug Inspector’s Locus Standi – Petitioner contended that complainant was not notified as Inspector for Gadag Circle under Section 21(1) of the Act – Court held: Once duly notified as Inspector for Shivamogga Circle, subsequent transfer covered under Section 21(2) – No fresh Gazette Notification required for each transfer – Narrow interpretation rejected as impractical and contrary to object of Act – Held: Inspector was competent to file complaint [Paras 9-16].

Cognizance and Trial – Role of Magistrate – Petitioner argued Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaint under Section 32 – Court held: Sessions Court alone competent to try offences under Chapter IV of the Act – However, cognizance must be taken by Magistrate and committed under Section 193 CrPC – Held: Complaint properly committed to Sessions Court under Section 209 – No illegality [Paras 17-20].

Special Laws and Cognizance – Comparison with SC/ST Act and PC Act – Court contrasted express cognizance provisions under other special statutes – Noted absence of similar provision in Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Reinforced need for committal procedure via Magistrate – Petitioner's argument rejected [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Proceedings against petitioner under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 upheld – Complaint held valid in law – Committal to Sessions Court proper – No ground for quashing.

Consolidation Proceedings – Concurrent Findings – Interference by High Court – Limited Scope – Petitioners challenged orders of Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and Deputy Director of Consolidation denying their claim based on a Will – All authorities recorded concurrent findings that Will was suspicious, not proved, and executed under questionable circumstances – Held: High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under Article 226 unless findings are perverse or without jurisdiction [Paras 2, 8-13].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Unnatural Exclusion of Heirs – Petitioners claimed ownership under a Will by Kadedeen excluding his minor grandson Kamla Kant – Authorities below found that testator had cordial relations with his family and no reason was shown to exclude grandson – Will was neither proved nor supported by village witnesses – Held: Will rightly disbelieved due to suspicious circumstances and lack of legal proof [Paras 3-4, 10-12].

Procedural Fairness – Framing of Issues – No Prejudice Shown – No Objection at Trial Stage – Petitioners argued no issue framed on validity of Will – However, no objection was raised before Consolidation Officer nor evidence led on Will – Authorities below dealt with the Will despite lack of formal framing – Held: No procedural error justifying remand or interference [Paras 5, 9].

Delay – Laches – Consolidation Proceedings Filed in 1977 – Writ Filed in 1980 – No Attempt to Assert Will-based Rights for Over 20 Years – Petitioners failed to take timely steps to record their names based on Will – Held: Inordinate delay supports presumption against genuineness of Will [Paras 4, 13].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – No case for interference in concurrent findings of fact – No perversity or jurisdictional error found [Para 15].

Juvenile Justice – Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Petitioner No. 1, arrested for murder under Section 302 IPC, was in judicial custody since 2017 – During trial in 2024, he raised a claim of juvenility and produced a scholar register showing his date of birth as 13.12.2002 – The trial court failed to determine his age as required under Section 9(2) of JJ Act and mechanically forwarded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board – The Board declared him juvenile on 15.05.2025 – Held: Since the claim was raised before the trial court, only the court was competent to determine age – Board’s order was without jurisdiction and a nullity – Petitioner’s continued detention in jail thereafter was illegal

Juvenile Justice – Detention in Jail – Prohibition under JJ Act – Under Section 10(1) of the Act, a child in conflict with law cannot be placed in police lock-up or jail – Even during age inquiry, such person must be kept in a place of safety – Petitioner’s detention in Naini Central Jail after raising juvenility claim was contrary to statutory mandate – Held: Present custody illegal

Habeas Corpus – Judicial Custody – Maintainability – Although habeas corpus is generally not maintainable against judicial remand, an exception arises where the detention is shown to be patently illegal or without jurisdiction – In present case, remand was mechanically passed without determination of age – Held: Writ of habeas corpus maintainable

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Juvenile in conflict with law can be detained for maximum three years under JJ Act – Petitioner had been in jail for over 8 years – Continued detention violative of Article 21 – Illegal and unconstitutional

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Writ of habeas corpus issued – Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj directed to release Petitioner No. 1 immediately – Commissioner of Police to produce Petitioner before trial court – Trial court directed to determine age under Section 9(2) JJ Act – If found juvenile, he to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for further action – If not, trial to proceed as per law

Hindu Marriage – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal against decree – Allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and suppression of husband’s mental illness not proved – No FIR or complaint filed – Evidence produced by wife unreliable and hearsay – Husband made genuine attempts to resume cohabitation which wife refused – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights upheld – No error found in judgment of Family Court [Paras 2–5].

Maintenance and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Nature and Scope – Interim maintenance under Section 24 can be granted during pendency of proceedings when applicant lacks independent income – Permanent alimony under Section 25 may be granted at the time of decree or subsequently – Right to maintenance available to either spouse but is discretionary – Conduct of parties is relevant consideration after 1976 amendment inserting “conduct of parties and other circumstances of the case” [Paras 7–11].

Discretionary Relief – Fault Principle – No party can take advantage of its own wrong – Maintenance cannot be claimed as of right by a spouse found at fault – However, to prevent destitution or vagrancy, Court may grant limited maintenance even to erring spouse – Quantum of maintenance to be proportionate to basic needs in such cases [Paras 11–12].

Restitution Decree – Effect on Claim for Maintenance – Court cannot direct that decree for restitution of conjugal rights shall have no effect on consideration of maintenance application – Wife, however, may apply separately for maintenance to avoid destitution; relief under Sections 24 and 25 remains discretionary and fact-dependent [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights dated 27.11.2014 in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 affirmed – No order directing that decree shall not affect claim for maintenance – Liberty reserved to appellant to apply independently for maintenance as per law [Paras 15–16].

Election Law – Election Petition – Rejection at threshold – Pleadings insufficient – Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed – Election Petition filed under Section 100 RP Act to challenge election of Respondent No.1 on five grounds: three alleging corrupt practices, one for improper acceptance of nomination, and one for improper refusal of votes – Court held that the petition lacked necessary pleadings and material particulars under Section 83(1)(a) and (b) – Absence of disclosure of names, dates, places in allegations of bribery and undue influence – No averment of material effect on election result in relation to improper acceptance of nomination or non-counting of votes – Held: Petition does not disclose cause of action and is liable to be rejected [Paras 1, 20–24, 51].

Corrupt Practices – Allegation of Bribery – Distribution of Sarees – Lack of particulars – Plea that sarees were distributed to voters with stickers bearing Respondent’s photo and party symbol – No names of distributors or connection to Respondent No.1 pleaded – Court held that without stating whether the distributor was candidate, election agent, or acted with consent, the plea fails statutory requirements – Allegation was vague and inferential – Not sufficient under Section 83(1)(b) RP Act [Paras 25–28, 69].

Corrupt Practices – Undue Influence – Threat to party worker – Not linked to electoral right – Threatening of one Manohar Patil, party worker of Petitioner, pleaded as corrupt practice under Section 123(2) RP Act – No averment that he was an elector or that his right to vote was interfered with – Court held this does not constitute a valid ground for corrupt practice – Also, inconsistency found between the complaint and pleading [Paras 29–32, 70].

Corrupt Practices – Fielding dummy candidates with similar names – No pleading of inducement with specifics – Allegation that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 with similar names were fielded to confuse voters – No pleading of who offered gratification, when, or how – SMS messages relied on were not connected to Respondent No.1 by specific averments – Respondent Nos.2 and 3 polled far fewer votes, and even if added to Petitioner’s total, would not change result – Held: No case made out under Section 100(1)(b) or (d) RP Act [Paras 33–39, 71–73].

Nomination Defect – Error in criminal case year – Not a substantial defect – Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1 failed to disclose RCC No.318/2013 and instead mentioned 318/2012 – Court held it was a typographical error; full details of the case were otherwise disclosed – No material effect on election result pleaded – Held: Not a valid ground under Section 100(1)(d)(i) RP Act [Paras 40–43].

Votes Not Counted – Polling Station 217 – No impact on election result – Technical error led to non-counting of 1,014 votes from one polling station – Petitioner did not plead how this materially affected result, especially since the winning margin was 5,694 votes – Held: Ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) RP Act not made out [Paras 44–46].

Election Law – Requisites of valid Election Petition – Section 83 RP Act – Non-compliance fatal – Court reiterated settled law that strict compliance with Section 83 RP Act is mandatory – Absence of even a single material fact or particular is fatal – No amount of evidence can cure pleading defects – Petition can be rejected at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 47–51].

Election Petition – Amendment – Section 86(5) RP Act – Cannot be used to introduce new corrupt practice or fresh particulars – Petitioner filed amendment application after realising fatal defects – Proposed amendments introduced new allegations or particulars not originally pleaded – Held: Amendments impermissible under Section 86(5); amendment power is limited to amplification of already pleaded particulars, not introduction of new instances or corrupt practices [Paras 53–74].

Practice and Procedure – Belated amendment aimed to defeat rejection application – Not permissible – Amendment application filed one day prior to hearing of Order VII Rule 11 application – Court found it to be a tactical move – Held: Amendment not bonafide and prejudicial to Respondent – Petition liable to be rejected irrespective of proposed amendment [Paras 75].

Decision: Election Petition rejected – Application for amendment also rejected – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Petition dismissed as not disclosing cause of action [Paras 76(i)–(iii)].

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 152 BNS – Social Media Post – Allegation of 'Pakistan Zindabad' post by applicant under a foreign national’s post – No material to show active promotion of secession or armed rebellion – Held: Section 152 BNS requires intentional incitement of secession or subversive activity – Mere expression of sentiment, even if offensive, does not fulfill statutory requirements – Bail justified in absence of prima facie intent to endanger sovereignty or unity [Paras 5-8].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech – Standards of Reasonable Interpretation – Apex Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat held that speech must be judged on reasonable person standard – Court emphasizes liberty under Article 19(1)(a) and cautions against overbroad criminalization of speech on social media – Police must act within constitutional limits [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – No Criminal History – Long Trial Delay – Applicant in custody since May 2025 with no prior convictions – Court applies principle of presumption of innocence and right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Cites Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and highlights prison overcrowding – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Para 10].

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure trial participation – Breach of conditions to lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 10-12].

Civil Law - Telegraph Act – Compensation for Land Damage – Finality of District Judge's Decision – Appeals were filed by farmers challenging judgments passed under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 awarding compensation for damage caused by installation of transmission lines – High Court held that under Section 16(5), such decisions are statutorily final – Consequently, no appeal under Section 96 CPC is maintainable against such judgments or decrees, irrespective of whether the District Court styled the proceedings as ‘Civil Suits’ or passed a ‘decree’ [Paras 10–14, 18].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Limitations Imposed by Special Statutes – Court observed that Section 96 CPC is subject to “express provisions” in any other law – Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act being a special provision clearly excludes appellate remedy – Drawing of a decree by the District Judge does not override statutory finality under Telegraph Act [Paras 11–13].

Judicial Guidance – Alternative Remedy under Writ Jurisdiction – In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. Vinod, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1731, Court observed that parties aggrieved by District Court’s decision under Section 16(3) may explore remedies under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution – Supreme Court had urged the Law Commission and Government of India to consider statutory appellate remedy for such cases [Paras 15–17, 19].

Civil Procedure – Return of Plaint/Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction – Court held that since it lacked jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC due to the statutory bar under Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act, the only course was to return the First Appeals under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, and not to dismiss them – Return of appeals ordered with liberty to appellants to approach appropriate forum [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Objection to maintainability sustained – First Appeals returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for want of jurisdiction – Appellants at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy under constitutional jurisdiction as per guidance in Kalpataru judgment.

Family Law – Paternity Dispute – DNA Test Sought by Father – Request Denied – Maintenance Proceedings – Presumption of Legitimacy Upheld – Petitioner-husband challenged trial court’s refusal to order DNA testing of minor child during pendency of wife's maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC – Held: No prima facie material produced by petitioner to rebut presumption under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Mere denial of paternity not sufficient – Long delay of over 12 years from divorce and 3 years after maintenance petition remains unexplained – Legal presumption of legitimacy applies [Paras 6, 25–28, 32, 34–35].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Test – Not a Routine Measure – Right to Privacy and Dignity Considered – DNA testing involves serious privacy implications – Court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be ordered merely on suspicion or as a shortcut to prove adultery – Child’s right to identity and dignity must be prioritised – DNA test not the only method to prove infidelity or lack of paternity – Courts must balance scientific tools with constitutional rights [Paras 18–22, 35–36].

Delay – Unexplained Silence of Petitioner – Conduct Impugns Credibility of Claim – Divorce was granted in 2012 and maintenance petition filed in 2021 – DNA test application filed only in 2025 – Court found no reasonable or acceptable explanation for delay – Silence for over a decade suggests ulterior motive to humiliate the respondent and delay maintenance proceedings [Paras 25, 34, 38].

Legal Presumption – Section 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Conclusive Proof of Paternity During Marriage – No Proof of Non-Access – Child born during valid marriage attracts statutory presumption of legitimacy – Husband failed to prove non-access during the relevant period – Law discourages unwarranted inquiries into paternity where marriage subsisted [Paras 26–28].

Constitutional Law – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Right to Privacy – Courts Cautioned Against Intrusive Tests Without Justification – Referring to Supreme Court precedents (Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, Aparna Firodia v. Ajinkya Firodia), court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be directed unless strong prima facie case is made – Intrusive procedures like DNA testing impinge upon Article 20(3) and 21 – Such tests cannot be permitted to settle personal scores or as a weapon in matrimonial disputes [Paras 21–23, 29–31, 35–37].

Abuse of Process – DNA Petition Found Frivolous – Filed to Harass and Delay – Court found DNA application to be filed only to prolong proceedings and malign character of wife – Held: No legal justification shown to interfere with trial court order – Revision petition dismissed with observations on misuse of legal process [Paras 32, 38].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – No prima facie case made for DNA testing – No interference warranted with trial court’s well-reasoned order dated 12.06.2025 – No costs awarded – Connected miscellaneous petition also closed [Paras 38–40].